|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
CRUCIAL THEOREM IN THERMODYNAMICS
Kelvin's version of the second law of thermodynamics: It is impossible
to perform a cyclic process with no other result than that heat is absorbed from a reservoir, and work is performed. THEOREM: Kelvin's version of the second law is true if and only if, whenever two INTERACTING heat engines absorb heat from a reservoir (the surroundings) and perform reversible work, the following equality of partial derivatives holds: (dF1 / dX2)_X1 = (dF2 / dX1)_X2 where "d" is the sign for partial derivative, F1 and F2 are work- producing forces and X1 and X2 are the respective displacements. If the two partial derivatives are not equal, the second law is false. Consider INTERACTING "chemical springs". There are two types of macroscopic contractile polymers which on acidification (decreasing the pH of the system) contract and can lift a weight: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jp972167t J. Phys. Chem. B, 1997, 101 (51), pp 11007 - 11028 Dan W. Urry, "Physical Chemistry of Biological Free Energy Transduction As Demonstrated by Elastic Protein-Based Polymers" Polymers designed by Urry (U) absorb protons on stretching (as their length, Lu, increases), whereas polymers designed by Katchalsky (K) release protons on stretching (as their length, Lk, increases). (See discussion on p. 11020 in Urry's paper). Let us assume that two macroscopic polymers, one of each type (U and K) are suspended in the same system. At constant temperature, if the second law is true, we must have (dFu / dLk)_Lu = (dFk / dLu)_Lk where Fu0 and Fk0 are work-producing forces of contraction. The values of the partial derivatives (dFu/dLk)_Lu and (dFk/dLu)_Lk can be assessed from experimental results reported on p. 11020 in Urry's paper. As K is being stretched (Lk increases), it releases protons, the pH decreases and, accordingly, Fu must increase. Therefore, (dFu/ dLk)_Lu is positive. In contrast, as U is being stretched (Lu increases), it absorbs protons, the pH increases and Fk must decrease. Therefore, (dFk/dLu)_Lk is negative. One partial derivative is positive, the other negative: this proves that the second law of thermodynamics is false. Pentcho Valev |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
cRUCiAl tHEorEM In tHERmoDYnAMicS
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Kelvin's version of the second law of thermodynamics: It is impossible to perform a cyclic process with no other result than that heat is absorbed from a reservoir, and work is performed. THEOREM: Kelvin's version of the second law is true if and only if, whenever two INTERACTING heat engines absorb heat from a reservoir (the surroundings) and perform reversible work, the following equality of partial derivatives holds: (dF1 / dX2)_X1 = (dF2 / dX1)_X2 where "d" is the sign for partial derivative, F1 and F2 are work- producing forces and X1 and X2 are the respective displacements. If the two partial derivatives are not equal, the second law is false. Consider INTERACTING "chemical springs". There are two types of macroscopic contractile polymers which on acidification (decreasing the pH of the system) contract and can lift a weight: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jp972167t J. Phys. Chem. B, 1997, 101 (51), pp 11007 - 11028 Dan W. Urry, "Physical Chemistry of Biological Free Energy Transduction As Demonstrated by Elastic Protein-Based Polymers" Polymers designed by Urry (U) absorb protons on stretching (as their length, Lu, increases), whereas polymers designed by Katchalsky (K) release protons on stretching (as their length, Lk, increases). (See discussion on p. 11020 in Urry's paper). Let us assume that two macroscopic polymers, one of each type (U and K) are suspended in the same system. At constant temperature, if the second law is true, we must have (dFu / dLk)_Lu = (dFk / dLu)_Lk where Fu0 and Fk0 are work-producing forces of contraction. The values of the partial derivatives (dFu/dLk)_Lu and (dFk/dLu)_Lk can be assessed from experimental results reported on p. 11020 in Urry's paper. As K is being stretched (Lk increases), it releases protons, the pH decreases and, accordingly, Fu must increase. Therefore, (dFu/ dLk)_Lu is positive. In contrast, as U is being stretched (Lu increases), it absorbs protons, the pH increases and Fk must decrease. Therefore, (dFk/dLu)_Lk is negative. One partial derivative is positive, the other negative: this proves that the second law of thermodynamics is false. Pentcho Valev |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
CRUCIAL THEOREM IN THERMODYNAMICS
On May 6, 3:13*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Kelvin's version of the second law of thermodynamics: It is impossible to perform a cyclic process with no other result than that heat is absorbed from a reservoir, and work is performed. THEOREM: Kelvin's version of the second law is true if and only if, whenever two INTERACTING heat engines absorb heat from a reservoir (the surroundings) and perform reversible work, the following equality of partial derivatives holds: (dF1 / dX2)_X1 = (dF2 / dX1)_X2 where "d" is the sign for partial derivative, F1 and F2 are work- producing forces and X1 and X2 are the respective displacements. If the two partial derivatives are not equal, the second law is false. Consider INTERACTING "chemical springs". There are two types of macroscopic contractile polymers which on acidification (decreasing the pH of the system) contract and can lift a weight: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jp972167t J. Phys. Chem. B, 1997, 101 (51), pp 11007 - 11028 Dan W. Urry, "Physical Chemistry of Biological Free Energy Transduction As Demonstrated by Elastic Protein-Based Polymers" Polymers designed by Urry (U) absorb protons on stretching (as their length, Lu, increases), whereas polymers designed by Katchalsky (K) release protons on stretching (as their length, Lk, increases). (See discussion on p. 11020 in Urry's paper). Let us assume that two macroscopic polymers, one of each type (U and K) are suspended in the same system. At constant temperature, if the second law is true, we must have (dFu / dLk)_Lu *= *(dFk / dLu)_Lk where Fu0 and Fk0 are work-producing forces of contraction. The values of the partial derivatives (dFu/dLk)_Lu *and *(dFk/dLu)_Lk can be assessed from experimental results reported on p. 11020 in Urry's paper. As K is being stretched (Lk increases), it releases protons, the pH decreases and, accordingly, Fu must increase. Therefore, (dFu/ dLk)_Lu is positive. In contrast, as U is being stretched (Lu increases), it absorbs protons, the pH increases and Fk must decrease. Therefore, (dFk/dLu)_Lk is negative. One partial derivative is positive, the other negative: this proves that the second law of thermodynamics is false. Pentcho Valev You mean, there are actually people who are passionate about the second law of thermodynamics?... You know, when I took that class, you were lucky if you didn't drop dead from boredom... and the professor had questions about the big bang theory in his test questions... Whatever. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Cruci Al the OR emin, mate. Ma tics.
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Kelvin's version of the second law of thermodynamics: It is impossible to perform a cyclic process with no other result than that heat is absorbed from a reservoir, and work is performed. THEOREM: Kelvin's version of the second law is true if and only if, whenever two INTERACTING heat engines absorb heat from a reservoir (the surroundings) and perform reversible work, the following equality of partial derivatives holds: (dF1 / dX2)_X1 = (dF2 / dX1)_X2 where "d" is the sign for partial derivative, F1 and F2 are work- producing forces and X1 and X2 are the respective displacements. If the two partial derivatives are not equal, the second law is false. Consider INTERACTING "chemical springs". There are two types of macroscopic contractile polymers which on acidification (decreasing the pH of the system) contract and can lift a weight: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jp972167t J. Phys. Chem. B, 1997, 101 (51), pp 11007 - 11028 Dan W. Urry, "Physical Chemistry of Biological Free Energy Transduction As Demonstrated by Elastic Protein-Based Polymers" Polymers designed by Urry (U) absorb protons on stretching (as their length, Lu, increases), whereas polymers designed by Katchalsky (K) release protons on stretching (as their length, Lk, increases). (See discussion on p. 11020 in Urry's paper). Let us assume that two macroscopic polymers, one of each type (U and K) are suspended in the same system. At constant temperature, if the second law is true, we must have (dFu / dLk)_Lu = (dFk / dLu)_Lk where Fu0 and Fk0 are work-producing forces of contraction. The values of the partial derivatives (dFu/dLk)_Lu and (dFk/dLu)_Lk can be assessed from experimental results reported on p. 11020 in Urry's paper. As K is being stretched (Lk increases), it releases protons, the pH decreases and, accordingly, Fu must increase. Therefore, (dFu/ dLk)_Lu is positive. In contrast, as U is being stretched (Lu increases), it absorbs protons, the pH increases and Fk must decrease. Therefore, (dFk/dLu)_Lk is negative. One partial derivative is positive, the other negative: this proves that the second law of thermodynamics is false. Pentcho Valev |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Cruci Al, the O.R. Yemin, the R.M., o dyna, mics.
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Kelvin's version of the second law of thermodynamics: It is impossible to perform a cyclic process with no other result than that heat is absorbed from a reservoir, and work is performed. THEOREM: Kelvin's version of the second law is true if and only if, whenever two INTERACTING heat engines absorb heat from a reservoir (the surroundings) and perform reversible work, the following equality of partial derivatives holds: (dF1 / dX2)_X1 = (dF2 / dX1)_X2 where "d" is the sign for partial derivative, F1 and F2 are work- producing forces and X1 and X2 are the respective displacements. If the two partial derivatives are not equal, the second law is false. Consider INTERACTING "chemical springs". There are two types of macroscopic contractile polymers which on acidification (decreasing the pH of the system) contract and can lift a weight: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jp972167t J. Phys. Chem. B, 1997, 101 (51), pp 11007 - 11028 Dan W. Urry, "Physical Chemistry of Biological Free Energy Transduction As Demonstrated by Elastic Protein-Based Polymers" Polymers designed by Urry (U) absorb protons on stretching (as their length, Lu, increases), whereas polymers designed by Katchalsky (K) release protons on stretching (as their length, Lk, increases). (See discussion on p. 11020 in Urry's paper). Let us assume that two macroscopic polymers, one of each type (U and K) are suspended in the same system. At constant temperature, if the second law is true, we must have (dFu / dLk)_Lu = (dFk / dLu)_Lk where Fu0 and Fk0 are work-producing forces of contraction. The values of the partial derivatives (dFu/dLk)_Lu and (dFk/dLu)_Lk can be assessed from experimental results reported on p. 11020 in Urry's paper. As K is being stretched (Lk increases), it releases protons, the pH decreases and, accordingly, Fu must increase. Therefore, (dFu/ dLk)_Lu is positive. In contrast, as U is being stretched (Lu increases), it absorbs protons, the pH increases and Fk must decrease. Therefore, (dFk/dLu)_Lk is negative. One partial derivative is positive, the other negative: this proves that the second law of thermodynamics is false. Pentcho Valev |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
CRUCIAL THEOREM IN THERMODYNAMICS
Originally, the second law of thermodynamics appeared in 1824 as the
conclusion in an argument advanced by Carnot: Premise 1: Heat is an indestructible substance (cannot be converted into work in the heat engine). Premise 2: Perpetuum mobile of the first kind is impossible. Conclusion: All heat engines working reversibly between the same two temperatures have the same efficiency. Carnot's 1824 argument was valid but Premise 1 turned out to be false in the end (in fact, heat IS converted into work in the heat engine). The crucial question: How can a FALSE premise be indispensable in the deduction of a TRUE conclusion? has never been asked. (Those who would think that Premise 1 was not indispensable for Carnot's argument should try to deduce the conclusion from Premise 2 alone). Let me advance a hypothesis: If the crucial question had been both asked and answered, the following sad texts would never have been written: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20.../22/schools.g2 "We are nearing the end of the "World Year of Physics", otherwise known as Einstein Year, as it is the centenary of his annus mirabilis in which he made three incredible breakthroughs, including special relativity. In fact, it was 100 years ago yesterday that he published the most famous equation in the history of physics: E=mc2. But instead of celebrating, physicists are in mourning after a report showed a dramatic decline in the number of pupils studying physics at school. The number taking A-level physics has dropped by 38% over the past 15 years, a catastrophic meltdown that is set to continue over the next few years. The report warns that a shortage of physics teachers and a lack of interest from pupils could mean the end of physics in state schools. Thereafter, physics would be restricted to only those students who could afford to go to posh schools. Britain was the home of Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday and Paul Dirac, and Brits made world- class contributions to understanding gravity, quantum physics and electromagnetism - and yet the British physicist is now facing extinction. But so what? Physicists are not as cuddly as pandas, so who cares if we disappear?" http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...tion.education Harry Kroto: "The wrecking of British science....The scientific method is based on what I prefer to call the inquiring mindset. It includes all areas of human thoughtful activity that categorically eschew "belief", the enemy of rationality. This mindset is a nebulous mixture of doubt, questioning, observation, experiment and, above all, curiosity, which small children possess in spades. I would argue that it is the most important, intrinsically human quality we possess, and it is responsible for the creation of the modern, enlightened portion of the world that some of us are fortunate to inhabit. Curiously, for the majority of our youth, the educational system magically causes this capacity to disappear by adolescence.....Do I think there is any hope for UK? I am really not sure." Pentcho Valev wrote: Kelvin's version of the second law of thermodynamics: It is impossible to perform a cyclic process with no other result than that heat is absorbed from a reservoir, and work is performed. THEOREM: Kelvin's version of the second law is true if and only if, whenever two INTERACTING heat engines absorb heat from a reservoir (the surroundings) and perform reversible work, the following equality of partial derivatives holds: (dF1 / dX2)_X1 = (dF2 / dX1)_X2 where "d" is the sign for partial derivative, F1 and F2 are work- producing forces and X1 and X2 are the respective displacements. If the two partial derivatives are not equal, the second law is false. Consider INTERACTING "chemical springs". There are two types of macroscopic contractile polymers which on acidification (decreasing the pH of the system) contract and can lift a weight: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jp972167t J. Phys. Chem. B, 1997, 101 (51), pp 11007 - 11028 Dan W. Urry, "Physical Chemistry of Biological Free Energy Transduction As Demonstrated by Elastic Protein-Based Polymers" Polymers designed by Urry (U) absorb protons on stretching (as their length, Lu, increases), whereas polymers designed by Katchalsky (K) release protons on stretching (as their length, Lk, increases). (See discussion on p. 11020 in Urry's paper). Let us assume that two macroscopic polymers, one of each type (U and K) are suspended in the same system. At constant temperature, if the second law is true, we must have (dFu / dLk)_Lu = (dFk / dLu)_Lk where Fu0 and Fk0 are work-producing forces of contraction. The values of the partial derivatives (dFu/dLk)_Lu and (dFk/dLu)_Lk can be assessed from experimental results reported on p. 11020 in Urry's paper. As K is being stretched (Lk increases), it releases protons, the pH decreases and, accordingly, Fu must increase. Therefore, (dFu/ dLk)_Lu is positive. In contrast, as U is being stretched (Lu increases), it absorbs protons, the pH increases and Fk must decrease. Therefore, (dFk/dLu)_Lk is negative. One partial derivative is positive, the other negative: this proves that the second law of thermodynamics is false. Pentcho Valev |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
CRUCIAL THEOREM IN THERMODYNAMICS
Lakatos' protective belt consists of ad hoc auxiliary hypotheses which
protect false premises against experimental falsification. So the ad hoc hypothesis that moving bodies contract, introduced by FitzGerald and Lorentz, converted the Michelson-Morley experiment proving that the speed of light does depend on the speed of the emitter into an experiment proving that the speed of light does not depend on the speed of the emitter. In 1850 Clausius did something different: he sacrificed Carnot's false premise but protected the precious conclusion against logical falsification by introducing an AD HOC AUXILIARY ARGUMENT where the precious conclusion allegedly follows from another premise, true this time: http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/Clausius.html "Ueber die bewegende Kraft der Warme" 1850 Rudolf Clausius: "Carnot assumed, as has already been mentioned, that the equivalent of the work done by heat is found in the mere transfer of heat from a hotter to a colder body, while the quantity of heat remains undiminished. The latter part of this assumption--namely, that the quantity of heat remains undiminished--contradicts our former principle, and must therefore be rejected... (...) It is this maximum of work which must be compared with the heat transferred. When this is done it appears that there is in fact ground for asserting, with Carnot, that it depends only on the quantity of the heat transferred and on the temperatures t and tau of the two bodies A and B, but not on the nature of the substance by means of which the work is done. (...) If we now suppose that there are two substances of which the one can produce more work than the other by the transfer of a given amount of heat, or, what comes to the same thing, needs to transfer less heat from A to B to produce a given quantity of work, we may use these two substances alternately by producing work with one of them in the above process. At the end of the operations both bodies are in their original condition; further, the work produced will have exactly counterbalanced the work done, and therefore, by our former principle, the quantity of heat can have neither increased nor diminished. The only change will occur in the distribution of the heat, since more heat will be transferred from B to A than from A to B, and so on the whole heat will be transferred from B to A. By repeating these two processes alternately it would be possible, without any expenditure of force or any other change, to transfer as much heat as we please from a cold to a hot body, and this is not in accord with the other relations of heat, since it always shows a tendency to equalize temperature differences and therefore to pass from hotter to colder bodies." Pentcho Valev wrote: Originally, the second law of thermodynamics appeared in 1824 as the conclusion in an argument advanced by Carnot: Premise 1: Heat is an indestructible substance (cannot be converted into work in the heat engine). Premise 2: Perpetuum mobile of the first kind is impossible. Conclusion: All heat engines working reversibly between the same two temperatures have the same efficiency. Carnot's 1824 argument was valid but Premise 1 turned out to be false in the end (in fact, heat IS converted into work in the heat engine). The crucial question: How can a FALSE premise be indispensable in the deduction of a TRUE conclusion? has never been asked. (Those who would think that Premise 1 was not indispensable for Carnot's argument should try to deduce the conclusion from Premise 2 alone). Let me advance a hypothesis: If the crucial question had been both asked and answered, the following sad texts would never have been written: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20.../22/schools.g2 "We are nearing the end of the "World Year of Physics", otherwise known as Einstein Year, as it is the centenary of his annus mirabilis in which he made three incredible breakthroughs, including special relativity. In fact, it was 100 years ago yesterday that he published the most famous equation in the history of physics: E=mc2. But instead of celebrating, physicists are in mourning after a report showed a dramatic decline in the number of pupils studying physics at school. The number taking A-level physics has dropped by 38% over the past 15 years, a catastrophic meltdown that is set to continue over the next few years. The report warns that a shortage of physics teachers and a lack of interest from pupils could mean the end of physics in state schools. Thereafter, physics would be restricted to only those students who could afford to go to posh schools. Britain was the home of Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday and Paul Dirac, and Brits made world- class contributions to understanding gravity, quantum physics and electromagnetism - and yet the British physicist is now facing extinction. But so what? Physicists are not as cuddly as pandas, so who cares if we disappear?" http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...tion.education Harry Kroto: "The wrecking of British science....The scientific method is based on what I prefer to call the inquiring mindset. It includes all areas of human thoughtful activity that categorically eschew "belief", the enemy of rationality. This mindset is a nebulous mixture of doubt, questioning, observation, experiment and, above all, curiosity, which small children possess in spades. I would argue that it is the most important, intrinsically human quality we possess, and it is responsible for the creation of the modern, enlightened portion of the world that some of us are fortunate to inhabit. Curiously, for the majority of our youth, the educational system magically causes this capacity to disappear by adolescence.....Do I think there is any hope for UK? I am really not sure." Kelvin's version of the second law of thermodynamics: It is impossible to perform a cyclic process with no other result than that heat is absorbed from a reservoir, and work is performed. THEOREM: Kelvin's version of the second law is true if and only if, whenever two INTERACTING heat engines absorb heat from a reservoir (the surroundings) and perform reversible work, the following equality of partial derivatives holds: (dF1 / dX2)_X1 = (dF2 / dX1)_X2 where "d" is the sign for partial derivative, F1 and F2 are work- producing forces and X1 and X2 are the respective displacements. If the two partial derivatives are not equal, the second law is false. Consider INTERACTING "chemical springs". There are two types of macroscopic contractile polymers which on acidification (decreasing the pH of the system) contract and can lift a weight: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jp972167t J. Phys. Chem. B, 1997, 101 (51), pp 11007 - 11028 Dan W. Urry, "Physical Chemistry of Biological Free Energy Transduction As Demonstrated by Elastic Protein-Based Polymers" Polymers designed by Urry (U) absorb protons on stretching (as their length, Lu, increases), whereas polymers designed by Katchalsky (K) release protons on stretching (as their length, Lk, increases). (See discussion on p. 11020 in Urry's paper). Let us assume that two macroscopic polymers, one of each type (U and K) are suspended in the same system. At constant temperature, if the second law is true, we must have (dFu / dLk)_Lu = (dFk / dLu)_Lk where Fu0 and Fk0 are work-producing forces of contraction. The values of the partial derivatives (dFu/dLk)_Lu and (dFk/dLu)_Lk can be assessed from experimental results reported on p. 11020 in Urry's paper. As K is being stretched (Lk increases), it releases protons, the pH decreases and, accordingly, Fu must increase. Therefore, (dFu/ dLk)_Lu is positive. In contrast, as U is being stretched (Lu increases), it absorbs protons, the pH increases and Fk must decrease. Therefore, (dFk/dLu)_Lk is negative. One partial derivative is positive, the other negative: this proves that the second law of thermodynamics is false. Pentcho Valev |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
spam
spam
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
CRUCIAL THEOREM IN THERMODYNAMICS
Over the years the second law of thermodynamics took numerous
monstrous forms, e.g. this one: L. McGlashan, Chemical thermodynamics, Academic Press, London (1979), pp. 72-73: "For an infinitesimal change in the state of a phase alpha we write dU = T dS - p dV + SUM mu_B dn_B (1) We regard equation (1) as an axiom and call it the fundamental equation for a change of the state of a phase alpha. It is one half of the second law of thermodynamics. We do not ask where it comes from. Indeed we do not admit the existence of any more fundamental relations from which it might have been derived. Nor shall we here enquire into the history of its formulation, though that is a subject of great interest to the historian of science. It is a starting point ; it must be learnt by heart. It may be allowed to stand as an axiom until any single one of the host of equations that can be derived from it (with the help of other axioms of thermodynamics) has been shown experimentally to be false." In other words, thermodynamics simply died. The last major "development" took place 60-70 years ago and can be described as follows: For a closed system doing reversible work of expansion the first law of thermodynamics takes the form dU = dQ - PdV /1/ where dU is the internal energy change, dQ is the heat absorbed, P is pressure and V is volume. Since the system is CLOSED and undergoes reversible changes the entropy change is, by definition, dS=dQ/T and / 1/ becomes: dU = TdS - PdV /2/ J. Gibbs had managed to convince the world that, if the system is OPEN (substances are added to it), /2/ should be replaced by the equation: dU = TdS - PdV + SUM mu_i dn_i /3/ where mu_i is the chemical potential and n_i is the amount of the ith component. However Gibbs had failed to explain the meaning of the entropy change, dS, for an OPEN system. Is dS again equal to dQ/T, as it is for a closed system, or is dS equal to something else now that a procedure as drastic as the addition of substances to the system is introduced? The fact that dS was not defined for open systems made the equation / 3/ so fashionable (scientists adore equations with undefined terms) that in the end /3/ was called "the fundamental equation of thermodynamics". Yet scientists somehow felt that a new explicit definition of dS could bring even more career and money. The quickest among them, Ilya Prigogine, simply combined /1/ and /3/ and obtained dS = dQ/T - (1/T)SUM mu_i dn_i /4/ That was a new incredible definition of the entropy change (the scientific community had never seen anything like that) so the Nobel Committee immediately gave Prigogine the Nobel prize. Believers do not know how /4/ can be "shown experimentally to be false". Similarly, they do not know how the statement "The greenness of the crocodile exceeds its length" can be shown experimentally to be false. Pentcho Valev wrote: Lakatos' protective belt consists of ad hoc auxiliary hypotheses which protect false premises against experimental falsification. So the ad hoc hypothesis that moving bodies contract, introduced by FitzGerald and Lorentz, converted the Michelson-Morley experiment proving that the speed of light does depend on the speed of the emitter into an experiment proving that the speed of light does not depend on the speed of the emitter. In 1850 Clausius did something different: he sacrificed Carnot's false premise but protected the precious conclusion against logical falsification by introducing an AD HOC AUXILIARY ARGUMENT where the precious conclusion allegedly follows from another premise, true this time: http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/Clausius.html "Ueber die bewegende Kraft der Warme" 1850 Rudolf Clausius: "Carnot assumed, as has already been mentioned, that the equivalent of the work done by heat is found in the mere transfer of heat from a hotter to a colder body, while the quantity of heat remains undiminished. The latter part of this assumption--namely, that the quantity of heat remains undiminished--contradicts our former principle, and must therefore be rejected... (...) It is this maximum of work which must be compared with the heat transferred. When this is done it appears that there is in fact ground for asserting, with Carnot, that it depends only on the quantity of the heat transferred and on the temperatures t and tau of the two bodies A and B, but not on the nature of the substance by means of which the work is done. (...) If we now suppose that there are two substances of which the one can produce more work than the other by the transfer of a given amount of heat, or, what comes to the same thing, needs to transfer less heat from A to B to produce a given quantity of work, we may use these two substances alternately by producing work with one of them in the above process. At the end of the operations both bodies are in their original condition; further, the work produced will have exactly counterbalanced the work done, and therefore, by our former principle, the quantity of heat can have neither increased nor diminished. The only change will occur in the distribution of the heat, since more heat will be transferred from B to A than from A to B, and so on the whole heat will be transferred from B to A. By repeating these two processes alternately it would be possible, without any expenditure of force or any other change, to transfer as much heat as we please from a cold to a hot body, and this is not in accord with the other relations of heat, since it always shows a tendency to equalize temperature differences and therefore to pass from hotter to colder bodies." Originally, the second law of thermodynamics appeared in 1824 as the conclusion in an argument advanced by Carnot: Premise 1: Heat is an indestructible substance (cannot be converted into work in the heat engine). Premise 2: Perpetuum mobile of the first kind is impossible. Conclusion: All heat engines working reversibly between the same two temperatures have the same efficiency. Carnot's 1824 argument was valid but Premise 1 turned out to be false in the end (in fact, heat IS converted into work in the heat engine). The crucial question: How can a FALSE premise be indispensable in the deduction of a TRUE conclusion? has never been asked. (Those who would think that Premise 1 was not indispensable for Carnot's argument should try to deduce the conclusion from Premise 2 alone). Let me advance a hypothesis: If the crucial question had been both asked and answered, the following sad texts would never have been written: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20.../22/schools.g2 "We are nearing the end of the "World Year of Physics", otherwise known as Einstein Year, as it is the centenary of his annus mirabilis in which he made three incredible breakthroughs, including special relativity. In fact, it was 100 years ago yesterday that he published the most famous equation in the history of physics: E=mc2. But instead of celebrating, physicists are in mourning after a report showed a dramatic decline in the number of pupils studying physics at school. The number taking A-level physics has dropped by 38% over the past 15 years, a catastrophic meltdown that is set to continue over the next few years. The report warns that a shortage of physics teachers and a lack of interest from pupils could mean the end of physics in state schools. Thereafter, physics would be restricted to only those students who could afford to go to posh schools. Britain was the home of Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday and Paul Dirac, and Brits made world- class contributions to understanding gravity, quantum physics and electromagnetism - and yet the British physicist is now facing extinction. But so what? Physicists are not as cuddly as pandas, so who cares if we disappear?" http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...tion.education Harry Kroto: "The wrecking of British science....The scientific method is based on what I prefer to call the inquiring mindset. It includes all areas of human thoughtful activity that categorically eschew "belief", the enemy of rationality. This mindset is a nebulous mixture of doubt, questioning, observation, experiment and, above all, curiosity, which small children possess in spades. I would argue that it is the most important, intrinsically human quality we possess, and it is responsible for the creation of the modern, enlightened portion of the world that some of us are fortunate to inhabit. Curiously, for the majority of our youth, the educational system magically causes this capacity to disappear by adolescence.....Do I think there is any hope for UK? I am really not sure." Kelvin's version of the second law of thermodynamics: It is impossible to perform a cyclic process with no other result than that heat is absorbed from a reservoir, and work is performed. THEOREM: Kelvin's version of the second law is true if and only if, whenever two INTERACTING heat engines absorb heat from a reservoir (the surroundings) and perform reversible work, the following equality of partial derivatives holds: (dF1 / dX2)_X1 = (dF2 / dX1)_X2 where "d" is the sign for partial derivative, F1 and F2 are work- producing forces and X1 and X2 are the respective displacements. If the two partial derivatives are not equal, the second law is false. Consider INTERACTING "chemical springs". There are two types of macroscopic contractile polymers which on acidification (decreasing the pH of the system) contract and can lift a weight: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jp972167t J. Phys. Chem. B, 1997, 101 (51), pp 11007 - 11028 Dan W. Urry, "Physical Chemistry of Biological Free Energy Transduction As Demonstrated by Elastic Protein-Based Polymers" Polymers designed by Urry (U) absorb protons on stretching (as their length, Lu, increases), whereas polymers designed by Katchalsky (K) release protons on stretching (as their length, Lk, increases). (See discussion on p. 11020 in Urry's paper). Let us assume that two macroscopic polymers, one of each type (U and K) are suspended in the same system. At constant temperature, if the second law is true, we must have (dFu / dLk)_Lu = (dFk / dLu)_Lk where Fu0 and Fk0 are work-producing forces of contraction. The values of the partial derivatives (dFu/dLk)_Lu and (dFk/dLu)_Lk can be assessed from experimental results reported on p. 11020 in Urry's paper. As K is being stretched (Lk increases), it releases protons, the pH decreases and, accordingly, Fu must increase. Therefore, (dFu/ dLk)_Lu is positive. In contrast, as U is being stretched (Lu increases), it absorbs protons, the pH increases and Fk must decrease. Therefore, (dFk/dLu)_Lk is negative. One partial derivative is positive, the other negative: this proves that the second law of thermodynamics is false. Pentcho Valev |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
spam
spam
|
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
THE MYSTERY OF THE CARNOT THEOREM | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 6 | March 30th 10 05:52 AM |
THE CLAUSIUS THEOREM | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 1 | April 4th 09 09:52 AM |
TACIT THEOREM IN EINSTEINIANA | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 34 | March 1st 09 04:17 PM |
Refuting Michael Ibison's No Go Theorem on Warp Drive & PropellantlessPropulsion | Jack Sarfatti | Astronomy Misc | 0 | June 12th 07 02:45 AM |
Special for Darla V. : Fermat's last theorem | Darla | Misc | 2 | February 7th 04 08:15 PM |